logo
Inner workings of AI an enigma - even to its creators

Inner workings of AI an enigma - even to its creators

The Star13-05-2025

Harnessing the inner workings of gen AI minds could clear the way for its adoption in areas where tiny errors can have dramatic consequences, like national security, Amodei said. — Pixabay
NEW YORK: Even the greatest human minds building generative artificial intelligence that is poised to change the world admit they do not comprehend how digital minds think.
"People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work," Anthropic co-founder Dario Amodei wrote in an essay posted online in April.
"This lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology."
Unlike traditional software programs that follow pre-ordained paths of logic dictated by programmers, generative AI (gen AI) models are trained to find their own way to success once prompted.
In a recent podcast Chris Olah, who was part of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI before joining Anthropic, described gen AI as "scaffolding" on which circuits grow.
Olah is considered an authority in so-called mechanistic interpretability, a method of reverse engineering AI models to figure out how they work.
This science, born about a decade ago, seeks to determine exactly how AI gets from a query to an answer.
"Grasping the entirety of a large language model is an incredibly ambitious task," said Neel Nanda, a senior research scientist at the Google DeepMind AI lab.
It was "somewhat analogous to trying to fully understand the human brain," Nanda added to AFP, noting neuroscientists have yet to succeed on that front.
Delving into digital minds to understand their inner workings has gone from a little-known field just a few years ago to being a hot area of academic study.
"Students are very much attracted to it because they perceive the impact that it can have," said Boston University computer science professor Mark Crovella.
The area of study is also gaining traction due to its potential to make gen AI even more powerful, and because peering into digital brains can be intellectually exciting, the professor added.
Keeping AI honest
Mechanistic interpretability involves studying not just results served up by gen AI but scrutinising calculations performed while the technology mulls queries, according to Crovella.
"You could look into the model...observe the computations that are being performed and try to understand those," the professor explained.
Startup Goodfire uses AI software capable of representing data in the form of reasoning steps to better understand gen AI processing and correct errors.
The tool is also intended to prevent gen AI models from being used maliciously or from deciding on their own to deceive humans about what they are up to.
"It does feel like a race against time to get there before we implement extremely intelligent AI models into the world with no understanding of how they work," said Goodfire chief executive Eric Ho.
In his essay, Amodei said recent progress has made him optimistic that the key to fully deciphering AI will be found within two years.
"I agree that by 2027, we could have interpretability that reliably detects model biases and harmful intentions," said Auburn University associate professor Anh Nguyen.
According to Boston University's Crovella, researchers can already access representations of every digital neuron in AI brains.
"Unlike the human brain, we actually have the equivalent of every neuron instrumented inside these models", the academic said. "Everything that happens inside the model is fully known to us. It's a question of discovering the right way to interrogate that."
Harnessing the inner workings of gen AI minds could clear the way for its adoption in areas where tiny errors can have dramatic consequences, like national security, Amodei said.
For Nanda, better understanding what gen AI is doing could also catapult human discoveries, much like DeepMind's chess-playing AI, AlphaZero, revealed entirely new chess moves that none of the grand masters had ever thought about.
Properly understood, a gen AI model with a stamp of reliability would grab competitive advantage in the market.
Such a breakthrough by a US company would also be a win for the nation in its technology rivalry with China.
"Powerful AI will shape humanity's destiny," Amodei wrote.
"We deserve to understand our own creations before they radically transform our economy, our lives, and our future." – AFP

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer
Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer

The Star

time13 hours ago

  • The Star

Human coders are still better than AI, says this expert developer

Your team members may be tempted to rely on AI to help them write code for your company, either for cost or speed rationales or because they lack particular expertise. But you should be wary. — Pixabay In the complex 'will AI steal my job?' debate, software developers are among the workers most immediately at risk from powerful AI tools. It's certainly looking like the tech sector wants to reduce the number of humans working those jobs. Bold statements from the likes of Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Anthropic's Dario Amodei support this since both of them say AI is already able to take over some code-writing roles. But a new blog post from a prominent coding expert strongly disputes their arguments, and supports some AI critics' position that AI really can't code. Salvatore Sanfilippo, an Italian developer who created Redis (an online database which calls itself the 'world's fastest data platform' and is beloved by coders building real-time apps), published a blog post this week, provocatively titled 'Human coders are still better than LLMs.' His title refers to large language model systems that power AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude. Sanfilippo said he's 'not anti-AI' and actually does 'use LLMs routinely,' and explained some specific interactions he'd had with Google's Gemini AI about writing code. These left him convinced that AIs are 'incredibly behind human intelligence,' so he wanted to make a point about it. The billions invested in the technology and the potential upending of the workforce mean it's 'impossible to have balanced conversations' on the matter, he wrote. Sanfilippo blogged that he was trying to 'fix a complicated bug' in Redis's systems. He made an attempt himself, and then asked Gemini, 'hey, what we can do here? Is there a super fast way' to implement his fix? Then, using detailed examples of the kind of software he was working with and the problem he was trying to fix, he blogged about the back-and-forth dialogue he had with Gemini as he tried to coax it toward an acceptable answer. After numerous interactions where the AI couldn't improve on his idea or really help much, he said he 'asked Gemini to do an analysis of (his last idea, and it was finally happy.' We can ignore the detailed code itself and just concentrate on Sanfilippo's final paragraph. 'All this to say: I just finished the analysis and stopped to write this blog post, I'm not sure if I'm going to use this system (but likely yes), but, the creativity of humans still have an edge, we are capable of really thinking out of the box, envisioning strange and imprecise solutions that can work better than others,' he wrote. 'This is something that is extremely hard for LLMs.' Gemini was useful, he admitted, to simply 'verify' his bug-fix ideas, but it couldn't outperform him and actually solve the problem itself. This stance from an expert coder goes up against some other pro-AI statements. Zuckerberg has said he plans to fire mid-level coders from Meta to save money, employing AI instead. In March, Amodei hit the headlines when he boldly predicted that all code would be written by AIs inside a year. Meanwhile, on the flip side, a February report from Microsoft warned that young coders coming out of college were already so reliant on AI to help them that they failed to understand the hard computer science behind the systems they were working on –something that may trip them up if they encountered a complex issue like Sanfilippo's bug. Commenters on a piece talking about Sanfilippo's blog post on coding news site Hacker News broadly agreed with his argument. One commenter likened the issue to a popular meme about social media: 'You know that saying that the best way to get an answer online is to post a wrong answer? That's what LLMs do for me.' Another writer noted that AIs were useful because even though they give pretty terrible coding advice, 'It still saves me time, because even 50 percent accuracy is still half that I don't have to write myself.' Lastly, another coder pointed out a very human benefit from using AI: 'I have ADHD and starting is the hardest part for me. With an LLM it gets me from 0 to 20% (or more) and I can nail it for the rest. It's way less stressful for me to start now.' Why should you care about this? At first glance, it looks like a very inside-baseball discussion about specific coding issues. You should care because your team members may be tempted to rely on AI to help them write code for your company, either for cost or speed rationales or because they lack particular expertise. But you should be wary. AIs are known to be unreliable, and Sanfilippo's argument, supported by other coders' comments, point out that AI really isn't capable of certain key coding tasks. For now, at least, coders' jobs may be safe… and if your team does use AI to code, they should double and triple check the AI's advice before implementing it in your IT system. – Inc./Tribune News Service

Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge
Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge

The Star

timea day ago

  • The Star

Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge

FILE PHOTO: A message reading "AI artificial intelligence," a keyboard and robot hands are seen in this illustration created on January 27, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo LONDON (Reuters) -Lawyers who use artificial intelligence to cite non-existent cases can be held in contempt of court or even face criminal charges, London's High Court warned on Friday, in the latest example of generative AI leading lawyers astray. A senior judge lambasted lawyers in two cases who apparently used AI tools when preparing written arguments, which referred to fake case law, and called on regulators and industry leaders to ensure lawyers know their ethical obligations. "There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," Judge Victoria Sharp said in a written ruling. "In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities ... and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services." The ruling comes after lawyers around the world have been forced to explain themselves for relying on false authorities, since ChatGPT and other generative AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Sharp warned in her ruling that lawyers who refer to non-existent cases will be in breach of their duty to not mislead the court, which could also amount to contempt of court. She added that "in the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice amounts to the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of justice". Sharp noted that legal regulators and the judiciary had issued guidance about the use of AI by lawyers, but said that "guidance on its own is insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence". (Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Sachin Ravikumar)

OpenAI fights back in NYT copyright lawsuit over ChatGPT data freeze
OpenAI fights back in NYT copyright lawsuit over ChatGPT data freeze

Malay Mail

time2 days ago

  • Malay Mail

OpenAI fights back in NYT copyright lawsuit over ChatGPT data freeze

NEW YORK, June 6 — OpenAI is appealing an order in a copyright case brought by the New York Times that requires it to preserve ChatGPT output data indefinitely, arguing that the order conflicts with privacy commitments it has made with users. Last month, a court said OpenAI had to preserve and segregate all output log data after the Times asked for the data to be preserved. 'We will fight any demand that compromises our users' privacy; this is a core principle,' OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a post on X yesterday. 'We think this (the Times demand) was an inappropriate request that sets a bad precedent.' US District Judge Sidney Stein was asked to vacate the May data preservation order on June 3, a court filing showed. The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours. The newspaper sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, accusing them of using millions of its articles without permission to train the large language model behind its popular chatbot. Stein said in an April court opinion that the Times had made a case that OpenAI and Microsoft were responsible for inducing users to infringe its copyrights. The opinion explained an earlier order that rejected parts of an OpenAI and Microsoft motion to dismiss, saying that the Times' 'numerous' and 'widely publicised' examples of ChatGPT producing material from its articles justified allowing the claims to continue. — Reuters

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store